Survival and growth response of white spruce stock types to site preparation in Alaska
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To identify suitable methods for reforestation, we evaluated the interacting effects of past disturbance, stock types, and site preparation treatments on white spruce (Picea glauca (Moench) Voss) seedling survival and growth across a range of sites in Alaska. Replicated experiments were established in five regions. At each site, two complete installations differed in time since disturbance: “new” units were harvested immediately before spring planting and “old” units were harvested at least 3 years before planting. We compared mechanical scarification before planting, broadcast herbicide application during the fall before planting, and no site preparation with 1-year-old container-grown seedlings from two sources, 2-year-old bare-root transplants from two sources, and 3-year-old bare-root transplants. Seedlings were followed for 11 years on most sites. Based on meta-analyses, seedling survival increased 10% with herbicide application and 15% with mechanical scarification compared with no site preparation. Scarification and herbicide application increased seedling height by about 28% and 35%, respectively, and increased seedling volume by about 86% and 195%, respectively, compared with no site preparation. Soil temperature did not differ among site preparation methods after the first 7 years. Results suggest that white spruce stands may be successfully restored through a combination of vegetation control and use of quality planting stock.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".